People with Disabilities in India: From Commitment to Outcomes

• It is also important to recall Sen’s “conversion handicap” for disabled people, i.e. that
equivalent levels of income are less easily converted into individual welfare by PWD. Taking
account of this factor would further widen the gap between PWD and non-PWD households.
In rural UP and TN, disability is clearly associated with lower economic status
Figure 1.3: Relative share of PWD and severe PWD by asset quintile, UP and TN, 2005
Figure 1.4: Relative HH share with PWD by consumption and asset quintiles (community identification),
UP and TN, 2005
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.4
1.4
1.4
Incidence relative to average
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
PWD
PWD severe
Presence of PWD in HH relative to averag
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Consumption
Assets
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
0.0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Source: UP and TN village survey, 2005, Bank staff estimates. Q1=poorest and Q5 richest quintiles.
1.13. There are several other non-income indicators at the household level from the
village survey which are of interest, and most of which also point in the direction of households
with PWD being worse off than average. Those which were statistically significant are
presented in Table 1.4. While the differences are not in most cases dramatic, several points are
worth noting:
• the key welfare indicator of three meals a day year-round shows a clear difference, with
PWD households almost one quarter less likely to report a positive answer.
• there are also significantly lower rates of ownership of key assets for PWD households.
• interestingly, the share of SC households with disabled members was substantially lower
than the households without disabilities.
Table 1.4: Non-income indicators for households with and without PWD, UP and TN, 2005
Indicator HH without PWD HH with PWD HH with severe PWD
Three meals per day 47.9% 36.7%** 37.4%**
year round
Pucca floor 39.9% 34.1%** 34.9%
Good light source 48.3% 42.2%** 42.8%
Good toilet 6.9% 4.1%** 4.0%*
Making some savings 35.9% 32.7% 30.1%**
Scooter/motorbike 16.9% 12.5%** 12.1%**
SC household 28.2% 20.4%** 20.9%*
Source: UP and TN village survey, 2005, Bank staff estimates. ** = significant at 5%; * = significant at 10%.
1.14. A final point which the NSS allows to explore is the relative welfare among
households with a disabled member by disability type. This is not subject to the same problems
of a different consumption measure as with comparisons to households without a PWD. Results
for both per capita household consumption and land holdings are presented in Figure 1.5. Overall,
-14-